I was recently very surprised to see an expensive security scanner which builds apps as the service account apparently without sandboxing. A package manager which executes code or which is exploitable would give you access to what is very likely an interesting account & data, and in at least some cases might not leave many clues behind. PyPI, etc. at least has centralization and immutable versions but who knows what's serving some random repo, tarball, etc. which might not even be a direct dependency?

With Python you can execute arbitrary code at import time... you don't even have to get to the install process. I've seen packages on Pypi that try to "sudo apt-get install ..." when the setup.py file is imported.

Also, even without sudo there's absolutely nothing stopping you (for example) downloading a cryptocurrency miner, or DDOS tool, or something, and starting it up to run in the background.

Doubly so since when installed on a server very often it will be done as "sudo pip install ....." (/s/pip/other-package-manager/ as needed)

I almost never see this. Even on systems that are only running a single python project, I only ever see folks use virtualenv. The only time I ever see things installed with sudo is when the package is being installed in a docker container.

> virtualenv

Running "pip install" as a user that has access only to the virtualenv directory is sounding like a good strategy.

This used to be super common, though. I see it all the time in legacy apps.

Yes – to the degree that it's uncommon now that's because many people in the community spent years loudly advising against it.